During a visit to a remote stretch of the Mexican border south of San Antonio in early March, Vice President J.D. Vance appeared to reject the possibility of the U.S. conducting military strikes in Mexico. When he was asked by a reporter from Univision if there was any possibility of U.S. military forces “going into Mexico,” Vance offered what appeared to be a clear and unequivocal answer: “No. Next question.”
Unfortunately, the reporter was never really given the opportunity to explore the inherent complexities of this question before Vance, who seemed annoyed by the question, abruptly pivoted to another reporter who proceeded to ask about tariffs.
Despite Vance’s assurance, however, there are multiple signs that seem to indicate that some type of direct U.S. military strike in Mexico is likely to occur. In early April, for example, NBC News, citing “six current and former U.S. military, law enforcement and intelligence officials with knowledge of the matter,” reported that the Trump administration was seriously considering launching drone strikes on drug cartels in Mexico even without the Mexican government’s authorization.
Speaking of drones, this might be a good time to mention that U.S. drones have already been conducting surveillance overflights in Mexico with the full knowledge and authorization of the Mexican government for decades. Under the current operational protocols of the program, C.I.A. officers in Mexico share intelligence acquired by these surveillance flights directly with Mexican security officials.
In fact, these surveillance flights have even been credited with providing the Mexican government with intelligence that has led to the arrests of several prominent Mexican cartel figures including, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán in 2014 and 2016 and then his son Ovidio Guzmán in 2023. Even more recently, Mexico’s Secretary of Defense, Gen. Ricardo Trevilla, acknowledged that U.S. intelligence-gathering drone flights had led to the apprehension of at least two prominent cartel figures in the state of Sinaloa.
Trevilla was careful to point out, however, that the surveillance flights that led to the recent arrest of the cartel figures in Sinaloa had not been directly ordered by Trump. He also thought it was important to clarify that “whenever these types of support flights” do occur, “it will be at the request and with permission” of the Mexican armed forces.
In any case, what seems abundantly clear by this point is that Trump is determined to conduct some type of military strike in Mexico. His fixation with this idea was evident as early as the summer of 2020 during his first term in office, when, on at least two separate occasions, he asked Mark T. Esper, his defense secretary at the time, about the possibility of launching missiles into Mexico.
This fixation would reemerge during his campaign for a second presidential term, when, as reported by Rolling Stone, Trump tasked his policy advisers with developing “a range of military options” in Mexico including strikes that were “not sanctioned by Mexico’s government.” He would also vow, according to a subsequent Rolling Stone article published in May of 2024, to “deploy American assassination squads into Mexico” if reelected.
And, according to a third Rolling Stone article on the topic published in November during the interval after Trump had won reelection and before he assumed office, Trump reportedly advised confidants and various GOP lawmakers of his intention to deliver an ultimatum to Mexican officials warning them that if they failed to stem the flow of fentanyl to America they would face American military reprisals.
It’s, of course, notable that one of Trump’s first official acts at the start of his second term in office was the theatrical signing of an executive order initiating the process by which certain Mexican drug cartels could be designated as terrorist organizations. This executive order laid the groundwork for the formal designation of the Cártel de Sinaloa, Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación, Cártel del Noreste (formerly Los Zetas), La Nueva Familia Michoacana, Cártel de Golfo (Gulf Cartel), and Cárteles Unidos as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists by the State Department on February 20th.
By early February, Trump had started to openly accuse the Mexican government of maintaining an “intolerable alliance“with Mexican cartels and, during his congressional address on March 4th, Trump once again invoked the prospect of military action in Mexico when he declared that it’s “time for America to wage war on the cartels.”
Trump would surge an additional 3,000 troops to his border mission in early March bringing the total number of active-duty troops deployed along the Mexican border, according to the Washington Post, to approximately 10,000.
On April 11th, in another ominous development, Trump issued an order authorizing the U.S. military to assume control of a stretch of land along the Mexican border, and, in the process, empowered the U.S. military to assume “a more direct role” in addressing what the administration characterizes as “an attack from a variety of threats.”
A day later, in what has been described as “an unprecedented concentration of naval assets for border security operations,” the Trump administration deployed a second guided missile destroyer to the Gulf of Mexico to join a destroyer which had been deployed in March.
On April 16th, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, Trump apparently attempted to pressure Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum during a tense phone conversation to agree to an expanded U.S. military presence in Mexico. President Sheinbaum, of course, unequivocally refused, but the fact that the request was made in the first place suggests the primacy of this idea as a policy objective for Trump.
And, just a few days ago on May 1st, Trump created a second expanded military zone along a stretch of the Mexican border near El Paso.
Unfortunately, in season two of the Trump Show, there’s no one around to stop Trump from pursuing his belligerent and reckless agenda in Mexico. Gone are the days of Mark Esper, John Bolton, and Mark Milley. In fact, every top official in the Trump administration of relevance to this situation has made it abundantly clear that they too support the use of military force in Mexico.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, for example, brashly warned Mexico’s top military officials, on a contentious January 31st phone call, that if they didn’t deal with the alleged “collusion” between the Mexican government and drug cartels, the U.S. military was prepared to take unilateral military action.
During an appearance on “Fox & Friends” when Hegseth was asked, in anticipation of the updated terrorist designation that would eventually be applied to Mexican cartels, whether he would be permitted “to go after them in Mexico,” he responded that “all options” remained “on the table.”
Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan struck a similar tone when he offered a qualified warning that Trump would not hesitate to use the U.S. military if American troops deployed on the Mexican border were targeted in any way by Mexican cartels.
According to the New York Times, there’s apparently a hardline faction within the administration, led by Sebastian Gorka, the senior director for counterterrorism within the White House National Security Council, that favors the direct use of the U.S. military in Mexico without the cooperation of Mexican security forces.
Even Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has stated a preference for working collaboratively with Mexico and who has praised the Mexican government for its interdiction efforts, has not ruled out unilateral military attacks in Mexico.
Most recently, Trump’s narrowly confirmed ambassador to Mexico, Ronald Johnson, also refused to rule out the possibility of unilateral U.S. military strikes in Mexico during his confirmation hearing in March before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Of course, given Trump’s penchant for political theatricality, it might be tempting to dismiss all of the menacing rhetoric and provocative military displays being directed at Mexico as just another episode in the Trump Show. After all, by appearing to get tough on Mexico, Trump may just be returning to one of the seminal themes of Trumpism. This may ultimately just be the latest version of anti-Mexican rhetoric and associated posturing being pedaled by the Trump administration to curry favor with the MAGA base. A distraction of this nature and magnitude might actually come in handy in the event of an economic downturn, sagging poll numbers, or other political setback.
As a number of analysts have explained, however, categorically dismissing all of the aggression emanating from the Trump administration as mere political theater would be a mistake.
According to Phil Boas, an opinion columnist for the Arizona Republic, Trump’s executive order transferring control of a strip of land along the Mexican border to the U.S. military is about a lot more than simply apprehending migrants. It’s ultimately, as argued by Boas, a prelude to “either staging operations against the cartels or repelling any counterstrikes they might provoke.”
James Bosworth, in an article conspicuously entitled “Take Trump’s Threats of U.S. Military Action in Mexico Seriously,” argues that the Trump administration is preparing for “an actual war” in Mexico with or without Mexico’s cooperation. As Bosworth explains, the only discernible “division” within the Trump administration, at this point, is not between those who are for or against the use of the U.S. military in Mexico. Instead, the “big question” being debated within the administration, according to Bosworth, is “whether the Mexican government should be asked to be a partner in these offensive operations or if the U.S. should launch them unilaterally without consulting Mexico first.”
Ioan Grillo, who has been described by the Washington Post as “one of the most experienced journalists covering organized crime in Mexico,” recently offered a similar warning. He cautioned me, during an online consultation, when I somewhat dismissively characterized the heightened rhetoric and military mobilizations being coordinated by the Trump administration as largely performative, to take Trump’s threats “seriously.”
In late April, as reports surfaced of a heavily armed Mexican army patrol accidentally crossing into the United States and confronting two Americans exploring the remote Bootheel area of New Mexico, I was reminded of one other comment Grillo had made during our conversation. Although Grillo believes that the threat of a U.S. military strike on Mexican territory has been mitigated to some extent by the efficacy of the Mexican government’s interdiction efforts, he acknowledged that “things could change very quickly.” All it would take, he warned, is one random “incident” to “spark things up” and provoke a larger and perhaps more serious confrontation in Mexico.
